Just a whiff of scepticism is all it takes to turn voters on an issue. And nothing can turn them as quickly as the perception a political donation has led to an advantage for the donor.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk promised to set up an inquiry in to political donations.Credit:Glenn Hunt

Politicians will often fall back on the "we followed the rules" line.

In most cases, they have.

Advertisement

But the black and white of political donation rules doesn't take into account the shade perception brings to the issue – and how that can colour an issue.

The Palaszczuk Government promised an inquiry into political donations in Queensland, as part of a list of commitments it made to independent Peter Wellington, while courting his support to form government.

He gave it, but the inquiry is yet to be set down. First it was waiting for a permanent Crime and Corruption Commission head, then a permanent non-government chair for the Parliament Crime and Corruption Committee.

Now it's waiting for direction. Does it include unions or not? How far back does it go? Does the CCC have to conduct it, or is it something the government could set up itself, much like the independent inquiry into greyhound racing. For an administration that has set up nearly 70 reviews and inquiries, it has been strangely reticent to move forward on what had been a key element of its attack on its predecessors.

But donations are something that other states have dealt with. NSW banned, which the High Court upheld, donations from property developers, as well as capping what candidates can accept from others.

Dr Paul Williams, senior lecturer from the Griffith University School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, said Queensland should "definitely" consider going down a similar route, banning not only donations from property developers but all corporate and commercial entities.

Unions, though, he believes would be a little more "tricky".

"It could be argued that because the liquor lobby, mining companies etc already hold significance influence in society and over the economy, voters would appreciate them keeping their fingers out of party politics," he said.

"The issue of unions, however, is a trickier question because of their historical relationship with Labor.

"Unions don't try to influence Labor governments, they are part of Labor governments by virtue of Labor's constitution and internal decision-making.

"After all, parties are still semi-private organisations: governments cannot tell them with whom they should associate, especially if they are a core element of the party.

"So while banning union donations would be problematic, capping them - and balloting union members for permission to donate to a party - would be relatively straightforward.

"But that might mean the conservative parties would be allowed to take capped donations from business umbrella groups, for example, the BCA etcetera."

Dr Williams said while most large corporations, who regularly donated, were as across the rules as political parties in terms of what they could and could not do, the perception of what those donations can wrought was harder to control.

"The paper trail is very clear these days via web-based records," he said.

"[But] The Newman Government lost significant credibility over allegations it was too close to its donors, - a situation neither government nor business wants to be in."

But it can lead to 'opportunity' and 'access' in a way that non-donors believe is unfair.

"...Opportunity to "catch the minister's, or other player's, ear," Dr Williams said.

"I would also call it purchasing 'good will'.

"Like public relations, it's not so much the power of a one-off event; it's the power of building a relationship within the network over a long period of time."

One way of chasing away the shade is to not just throw sunlight on it, by way of transparency, was to rid the state of donations altogether, opening the door to public funding of elections.

Political parties already receive money for each vote they receive. Using that money to fund election campaigns would even the playing field, Dr Williams said, and remove the suggestion that parties and politicians were beholden to their financial supporters.

"But that doesn't mean the $2.50 or so now awarded per vote should soar to compensate for a loss of corporate support," he said.

"It won't hurt democracy to discourage major parties from making their campaigns mulit-million dollar affairs.

"A bit of frugality will even the field, by default."

To do so would take political courage. Something parties of all colours find as difficult as the politics of perception.